From the first subject of study, ETL401, the concept of information literacy (IL) was introduced and I was able to critically evaluate some IL programs. These programs and models tend to be articulated in psychological terms of abilities or skills (Kapitzke, 2003); however, IL goes beyond a simple ‘search and find’ proficiency (Johnston and Webber, 2003). While some prefer to see IL as a series of strategies to follow (Eisenberg, Johnson & Berkowitz, 2010), I was introduced to the concept of a transformational approach (Abilock, 2004) that connects IL to lifelong learning skills that develop over the course of a person’s life, but developed formatively during school years (Lau, 2006). Langford (2001) promotes a conceptual view of IL that distinguishes learning as a sequence of numerous arrivals along a constant journey.With this approach IL becomes an adoption of appropriate behaviour to address specific needs (Johnson & Webber, 2003). Herring’s (2006) PLUS model is one that provides strategies but allows users to formulate their own path as they develop IL skills. Lloyd (2006) states that IL needs both individual practise and facilitation by others. This facilitation is an important part of the TL role and can be achieved with teachers in classrooms or at point of need. IL skills must be embedded in all curriculum programs and taught explicitly (Haycock, 1991) with collaboration with teachers to ensure best learning results (Hassett, 2007). Research for ETL401 provided the opportunity to study in detail some research regarding IL and subsequent process models. One thing that stood out was Herring’s (2006) statement that IL processes need to move the student from being mere ‘recipients’ to becoming ‘consumers’ of information. This has overtures of purposeful lifelong learning. If it is to be a lifelong skill, IL should be taught collaboratively with teachers, not just in the library. While an information process model can foster the development of research skills (Haycock, 2004), it is imperative that it not be limited to a set of skills, but be seen as a journey or process which constantly evolves to include new technologies and skills. Any IL model used will provide structure and a pathway for students to follow, but they must be allowed to retrace and backtrack steps when the need arises. Only then will they fully immerse themselves in the process, thus becoming true consumers (Herring, 2006). It became apparent that the very nature of information continued to evolve, creating an information rich digital environment that is becoming overwhelming (Warlick, 2007), especially with the advent of Web 2.0 applications. Website evaluation has now become an imperative skill for TLs (Herring, 2011a); however, care needs to be taken as not all of the plethora of website evaluation criteria is suitable for school use (Herring, 2011b). Students need to be taught how to identify pertinent and quality information (Carrol, 2011). This became particularly evident in the completion of ETL 501, titled ‘Information Environment’, as I evaluated my own search for information using a variety of search engines. I learned that Google isn’t the only search engine (Schneider, 2009)! I also learned that many students will revert to only looking at the first few listings, which helps them to get off track and lose sight of their information needs (Bergson-Michelson, 2010; Henry, 2006). I learned the importance of filtering and how to do this effectively in completing the required tasks for ETL 503 and ETL 501. Teaching this to students is essential to provide structure and narrow the focus, so the plethora of information is narrowed to one key element at a time (Eagleton and Guinee, 2002). INF 506 demonstrated the importance of developing professional learning networks, which has shown to play an important role in improving educational outcomes (Schlager, Farooq, Fusco, Schank, & Dwyer, 2009).
References
Abilock, D. (2004). Information literacy: Building blocks of research: Overview of design, process and outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.noodletools.com/debbie/literacies/information/1over/infolit1.html Bergson-Michelson, N. (2010). Search Engine Results as the First Defense of Authority. Knowledge Quest, 38(3), 9-13. Carroll, J. (2011). From encyclopaedias to search engines: Technological change and its impact on literacy learning. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 34(2), 27-34. Eagleton, M.B., and Guinee, K. (2002). Strategies for supporting internet inquiry. New England Reading Association Journal, 38 (2), 39-47. Retrieved from http://www.asdk12.org/staff/barton_michelle/HOMEWORK/71470_Strategies_for_Inquiry.pdf Eisenberg, M., Johnson, D. & Berkowitz, B. (2010). Information communications and technology (ICT) skills curriculum based on the Big ^ skills approach to information problem-solving. Library Media Connection, 28(6), 24-27. Hassett, B. (2007). Playing with Legos in the sandbox and other uses for a library. Library media Connection, 26(3), 24-26. Haycock, C. (1991). Resource-based learning: a shift in the roles of teacher, learner. NASSP Bulletin, 75(535), 15-22. Haycock, K. (2004). Information process models. Teacher Librarian, 32(1), 34. Retrieved from http://murraylib601.org/InfoProcessModels.pdf Herring, J. (2006). Critical investigation of students and teachers views of information literacy skills in school assignments. American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume9/informationliteracy.cfm Herring, J. E. (2011a). Improving Students’ Web Use and Information Literacy: A guide forteachers and teacher librarians. London; Facet Publishing. Herring, J. E. (2011b). Web Site Evaluation: A Key Role for the School Librarian. School Library Monthly, 27(8), 22-23. Introduction to information literacy. (n.d.)In Association of College and Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/issues/infolit/overview/intro/index.cfm Johnston, B. and Webber, S. (2003). Information literacy in higher education: A review and case study. Studies in Higher Education. 28(3), 335-352. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070309295 Kapitzke, C. (2003). Informationliteracy: A review and poststructural critique. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 26(1), 53-66. Langford, L. (2001). Critical literacy: A building block towards the information literate school community. Teacher Librarian, 28(5), 18. Lau, J. (2006). Guidelines on information literacy for lifelong learning. Retrieved from http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s42/pub/IL-Guidelines2006.pdf Lloyd, A. (2006). Information literacy landscapes: An emerging picture. Journal of Documentation, 62(5), 570-583. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/journals.htm?articleid=1571837&show=abstract Schneider, J. (2009). Besides Google: Guiding Gifted Elementary Students onto the Entrance Ramp of the Information Superhighway. Gifted Child Today, 32(1), 27-31. Warlick, D. (2007). Literacy in the new information landscape. Library Media Connection, 26(1), 20-21.
4.2 Information Literacy
From the first subject of study, ETL401, the concept of information literacy (IL) was introduced and I was able to critically evaluate some IL programs. These programs and models tend to be articulated in psychological terms of abilities or skills (Kapitzke, 2003); however, IL goes beyond a simple ‘search and find’ proficiency (Johnston and Webber, 2003).
While some prefer to see IL as a series of strategies to follow (Eisenberg, Johnson & Berkowitz, 2010), I was introduced to the concept of a transformational approach (Abilock, 2004) that connects IL to lifelong learning skills that develop over the course of a person’s life, but developed formatively during school years (Lau, 2006). Langford (2001) promotes a conceptual view of IL that distinguishes learning as a sequence of numerous arrivals along a constant journey.With this approach IL becomes an adoption of appropriate behaviour to address specific needs (Johnson & Webber, 2003). Herring’s (2006) PLUS model is one that provides strategies but allows users to formulate their own path as they develop IL skills.
Lloyd (2006) states that IL needs both individual practise and facilitation by others. This facilitation is an important part of the TL role and can be achieved with teachers in classrooms or at point of need. IL skills must be embedded in all curriculum programs and taught explicitly (Haycock, 1991) with collaboration with teachers to ensure best learning results (Hassett, 2007). Research for ETL401 provided the opportunity to study in detail some research regarding IL and subsequent process models. One thing that stood out was Herring’s (2006) statement that IL processes need to move the student from being mere ‘recipients’ to becoming ‘consumers’ of information. This has overtures of purposeful lifelong learning. If it is to be a lifelong skill, IL should be taught collaboratively with teachers, not just in the library.
While an information process model can foster the development of research skills (Haycock, 2004), it is imperative that it not be limited to a set of skills, but be seen as a journey or process which constantly evolves to include new technologies and skills. Any IL model used will provide structure and a pathway for students to follow, but they must be allowed to retrace and backtrack steps when the need arises. Only then will they fully immerse themselves in the process, thus becoming true consumers (Herring, 2006).
It became apparent that the very nature of information continued to evolve, creating an information rich digital environment that is becoming overwhelming (Warlick, 2007), especially with the advent of Web 2.0 applications. Website evaluation has now become an imperative skill for TLs (Herring, 2011a); however, care needs to be taken as not all of the plethora of website evaluation criteria is suitable for school use (Herring, 2011b). Students need to be taught how to identify pertinent and quality information (Carrol, 2011). This became particularly evident in the completion of ETL 501, titled ‘Information Environment’, as I evaluated my own search for information using a variety of search engines.
I learned that Google isn’t the only search engine (Schneider, 2009)! I also learned that many students will revert to only looking at the first few listings, which helps them to get off track and lose sight of their information needs (Bergson-Michelson, 2010; Henry, 2006). I learned the importance of filtering and how to do this effectively in completing the required tasks for ETL 503 and ETL 501. Teaching this to students is essential to provide structure and narrow the focus, so the plethora of information is narrowed to one key element at a time (Eagleton and Guinee, 2002).
INF 506 demonstrated the importance of developing professional learning networks, which has shown to play an important role in improving educational outcomes (Schlager, Farooq, Fusco, Schank, & Dwyer, 2009).
References
Abilock, D. (2004). Information literacy: Building blocks of research: Overview of design, process and outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.noodletools.com/debbie/literacies/information/1over/infolit1.htmlBergson-Michelson, N. (2010). Search Engine Results as the First Defense of Authority. Knowledge Quest, 38(3), 9-13.
Carroll, J. (2011). From encyclopaedias to search engines: Technological change and its impact on literacy learning. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 34(2), 27-34.
Eagleton, M.B., and Guinee, K. (2002). Strategies for supporting internet inquiry. New England Reading Association Journal, 38 (2), 39-47. Retrieved from http://www.asdk12.org/staff/barton_michelle/HOMEWORK/71470_Strategies_for_Inquiry.pdf
Eisenberg, M., Johnson, D. & Berkowitz, B. (2010). Information communications and technology (ICT) skills curriculum based on the Big ^ skills approach to information problem-solving. Library Media Connection, 28(6), 24-27.
Hassett, B. (2007). Playing with Legos in the sandbox and other uses for a library. Library media Connection, 26(3), 24-26.
Haycock, C. (1991). Resource-based learning: a shift in the roles of teacher, learner. NASSP Bulletin, 75(535), 15-22.
Haycock, K. (2004). Information process models. Teacher Librarian, 32(1), 34. Retrieved from http://murraylib601.org/InfoProcessModels.pdf
Herring, J. (2006). Critical investigation of students and teachers views of information literacy skills in school assignments. American Library Association. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/volume9/informationliteracy.cfm
Herring, J. E. (2011a). Improving Students’ Web Use and Information Literacy: A guide forteachers and teacher librarians. London; Facet Publishing.
Herring, J. E. (2011b). Web Site Evaluation: A Key Role for the School Librarian. School Library Monthly, 27(8), 22-23.
Introduction to information literacy. (n.d.)In Association of College and Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/issues/infolit/overview/intro/index.cfm
Johnston, B. and Webber, S. (2003). Information literacy in higher education: A review and case study. Studies in Higher Education. 28(3), 335-352. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070309295
Kapitzke, C. (2003). Informationliteracy: A review and poststructural critique. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 26(1), 53-66.
Langford, L. (2001). Critical literacy: A building block towards the information literate school community. Teacher Librarian, 28(5), 18.
Lau, J. (2006). Guidelines on information literacy for lifelong learning. Retrieved from http://archive.ifla.org/VII/s42/pub/IL-Guidelines2006.pdf
Lloyd, A. (2006). Information literacy landscapes: An emerging picture. Journal of Documentation, 62(5), 570-583. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/journals.htm?articleid=1571837&show=abstract
Schneider, J. (2009). Besides Google: Guiding Gifted Elementary Students onto the Entrance Ramp of the Information Superhighway. Gifted Child Today, 32(1), 27-31.
Warlick, D. (2007). Literacy in the new information landscape. Library Media Connection, 26(1), 20-21.
Table of contents
4.1 The Role of Teacher Librarian
4.3 Collection Management